The relationship between religion and the death penalty (capital punishment)

Introduction

Even though, we cannot prove many facts about religion, the aspect of faith and belief in what is good or evil factors into our daily lives. Through religion, human beings can easily make sense of the world, the numerous mysteries that exist, provide motivation, hope, as well as unite the human race. However, such dogma always has some limitations accompanying it, and caution should be a priority when handling issues associated with it. Religion can be defined as that set of beliefs, cultural systems, and worldviews that relate to human beings and give reasons to the cause, nature as well as the moral codes that govern their behavior. As much as different religions seem to have different beliefs, they all have a common code of conduct where the people are not supposed to portray certain behaviors. According to Selengut (2008), as much as religion tells tales of violence and war, the institution that opposes violence of any kind and advocates for peace, forgiveness, and reconciliation. Christopher Hitchens and Richard Dawkins argue that religion could be a source of violence. The arguments here are based on the fact that some religious leaders tend to exploit the power of religion and use it to encourage violence when promoting their objectives (Hitchens, 2008 and Dawkins, 2009). In addition, Dawkins insists that it never matters whether an individual belongs to certain religion; rather what matters is whether the religion influences the people to do evil things. However, there is no proving that religion does support any atrocities or even atheism. The misuse of religion poses some great threats to several growing democracies in the world as the politicization of religion intensifies and a rise in human conflicts being a major issue.

The Congress or any other state legislature may issue a death penalty to an individual for committing murder or other capital offenses as stipulated in a nation’s statutes. According to Reggio (2014), capital punishments in the past were carried out in several societies on criminals, and political or religious dissenters who were considered a threat to the society. More also, these people were executed publically to serve as a warning to those that would perform similar crimes or even tortured mercilessly before they were put to death. Today, very few countries like Iran, Saudi Arabia, and Sudan practice capital punishment onto those who have committed the hideous crimes defined as capital crimes in that particular country.

Relationship between religion and the death penalty

Such executions are not only prohibited in the international law but also are contrary to the beliefs of many religions. This issue of the death penalty as a punishment has been quite controversial in several states as the seriousness of the capital offenses varies in terms of political ideologies, culture, or religious beliefs of the people. Nations are consistently voting against the General Assemblies that apply the death penalty in their judgments in order to abolish the practice completely. Unfortunately, more than half of the world’s population lives in those nations that practice this kind of punishment, including the U.S., China, India, and Indonesia.

There are mixed ideologies on the matter of capital punishment among the major religious sects including Christianity, Islam, Hinduism, Buddhism, and Judaism. To understand the relationship between religion and capital penalty on individuals found guilty of engaging in such hideous activities, it essential to analyze each entity.

Christianity

In the Old Testament, there are transgressions in which execution was enthusiastically supported while, in other scenarios, Jesus Christ advocated for forgiveness and condemned the action, as it was some form of revenge. Nevertheless, the Christians’ interpretations of these messages vary substantially as every doctrine perceives the meaning in the best way that suits them. As such, some religious leaders manipulate some of this information in order to suit their interests. However, Keith (2008) asserts that the teachings of Christ when he intervened the stoning of the woman caught committing adultery suggest that Christianity should be against the act of capital punishment. According to this context, all the human beings have their defaults, and no one is justified to take any action that could claim the life of another. Christ also asked that true believers should turn their other cheek as a way to show that Christianity should not be associated with violence, including capital punishments. In addition, it is a commandment that is believed to have been inscribed on the stone tablets given to Moses by God, commanding that no one should commit murder. Methodist churches condemn these capital punishments because they are mostly influenced by revenge making it unfair to the minorities and less fortunate people in the society (McAnally, 2003). This Christian doctrine calls for the immediate abolishment of death penalties by the government and stands for repentance and forgiveness as the only factors that could lead to true ‘healing’ in the society.

Nevertheless, some Christians believed that the doctrine taught by Jesus is based on an individual’s personality rather than on the society’s responsibility to punish the people that commit certain crimes. As such, all the members of that society should respect any judgment that is made by the civil authorities, that the society entrusted all the power to take or spare life. Mordi [n.d] argues that the authorities are mandated to protect life at whatever the cost, even if it involves ending the life of another individual that poses a threat to the lives of the innocent people. These actions by the civil authorities are meant to provide security to life through subduing the outrage and violence brought forth.

Additionally, there is no clear explanation or evidence that Christianity officially condemns or supports capital punishment. Some of these doctrines suggest that capital punishment is not entirely an act that should be assumed or done away with; as this would mean that, the offenses done are being encouraged in the society. At the same time, it requires the Christians to show some mercy and portray values that go with the message conveyed (The Russian Orthodox Church | Department for External Church Relations). Consequently, capital punishment should be avoided by any means possible unless when it is extremely necessary to defend the innocent from a certain criminal. Some Christian doctrines also advocate for fairness and equity when applying the capital punishment on criminals found guilty of murder, as far as it does not discriminate or be a form of revenge.

Islam

Saeed and Saeed (2004) emphasizes that the Sharia laws require that some of the capital crimes stipulated by the law should receive death penalty sentences as the right punishment to ensure justice is carried out. The Sharia law requires that the people who oppose Allah should be executed, crucified, some parts of their bodies like the hands chopped off, or even exiled because they are a disgrace to their people. According to Aasi (2009), this is a law that depicts the kind of capital punishment imposed on such individuals and is practiced in some societies in the world, today. Extramarital sex or adultery between to married people is considered a grievous capital offense that the punishment required that the married people caught committing adultery be stoned to death (Hosseini, 2010).

Leaman (2013) and Mir-Hosseini (2011), argue that the acts of apostasy (where a Muslim converts to other religion), fasad (moral degradation and despicable mischief in the Muslim state), as well as Zina (adultery and other sexual immoralities), are crimes that mandate capital punishment. An individual who commits murder, whether intentionally or unintentionally (Qisas) is subject to a capital punishment as per the Sharia law, which leverages the issue by giving the victim approval to take the life of the murderer (Peters, 2005). However, capital punishment should be viewed as an intolerable denial of people’s civic rights, unfair and inequitable in practice.

Hinduism

Hinduism is a religion that does not have much of controversy as the decisions on capital punishment are clearly stipulated in the Hindu teachings that either permit or forbid the penalty as per the Hindu criminal law. Murder and other religious warfares are some of the crimes that this religion awards the capital punishment, considering their belief that the soul is reborn into another body (Phillips, 2009).

Buddhism

Buddhism is another controversial religion that does not clearly indicate whether that death penalties should be permitted or forbidden in the society. Some of the chapters of the Dhammapada issues injunctions against any support of legal measures that involve taking the life of another human being as a way punishing them for their offenses (Harris, 2013). There are stories that portray the power of Buddha’s teachings where Buddha shows success in saving and redeeming the life of Angulimala, who murdered several people (Darling-Smith, 2007). As such, the teachings insist on showing mercy and giving such an individual the second chance of repenting and reforming their life, instead of taking their life as it would look like some revenge. According to this religion, a king should not haste or make judgment out of anger when it comes to capital crimes like murder. However, as much as the criminals are granted time to make their final appeals, the punishment given to a criminal should fit the crimes committed, which include warfare and capital punishment.

Nevertheless, there are still some contradictions in the interpretation of these scriptures as some Buddhism states like Japan impose the capital punishment for some crimes, to date. In the year 2012, Mongolia abolished this sentence as well as Bhutan while Thailand still holds on the capital punishment as a way of justice against those that commit some of the hideous crimes. This aspect could be attributed to the fact that there are no any official teachings among the Thai monks on the issue of death penalty. As such, it makes it difficult for the members of that society to strongly favor the abolition of the penalty. Some of the people view the act of forgiving the criminals who have performed these atrocities as bad karma, which could have its roots from their evil past.

Several theories developed in this religion show that capital punishments imposed in the society could lead to greater evils, rather than eliminating or lowering the rate of criminal activities undertaken. For instance, the story of the king who beheaded a thief for stealing, instead of giving him some money, increased cruelty among the thieves. As such, thieves would murder anyone that they stole from in order to avoid being detected and facing the king’s wrath. They attacked several villagers that lived far away from the king’s city, creating a social disorder in the community (Collins, 1997).

Judaism

Teachings of this religion hypothesize the issue of capital punishment and leave the matter to the final judgment of God because a human being is not mandated to take life, as they are also imperfect in their ways. These teachings give approval of undertaking the punishment in a mere principle and not in an actual practical scenario, making the judgment on death penalty almost impossible and hypothetical. According to Goldstein (2006), making the decision on whether an individual should face death for the crimes they have committed requires that the judges be sure of the matter. This level of surety is largely impossible to achieve as proof to this conviction needs to be absolute and godly. Therefore, there are no any death penalties issued in a country like Israel, as this would go against their faith and norms.

Argument for and against death penalty

As far as justice is concerned, religion should be in the position to support capital punishment as a way curb the atrocities executed upon the innocent people in the society. Without such restrictions in the form strict penalties issued, several criminals would commit some hideous crimes without any remorse because they are sure of getting away with their actions. The crime rates in the society would escalate to unimaginable levels and the peace that religion advocates for disappears forever because no one would be safe enough. As such, there is the need to ensure that the phrase ‘an eye for an eye’ is exercised to serve justice and those individuals that pose a threat to the innocent done away with indefinitely. The support of this aspect is quite pronounced in the Islam religion where we find the people agreeing to the consequences associated with those that are found guilty of any of the capital offenses. The people found in these nations that are strict on their traditional belief of capital punishment as a form of justice support these ideologies fully as it is their way of living.

However, the aspect of religious teachings instills the human nature that we all should have in terms of the forgiving nature and ability to render a second chance to people caught accused of committing the capital crimes. Capital punishment tends to take away the dignity of human life, and the contemporary society has several techniques that can be used to protect it without declining the possibility of reforming such individuals. Additionally, the goal behind these ideologies is that, an individual could easily be falsely accused and passing the death penalty sentence to such an individual could be a form of murder. For instance, several law institutions including the FBI acknowledged having accused some people out of sheer claims and shreds of evidence that do not ultimately prove how guilty these individuals were. These individuals who most probably are innocent, get accused and a capital punishment levied on them because of the poor quality of the defense lawyers that represent them (“DPIC | Death Penalty Information Center, 2015”). More also, states should reconsider this discriminative system as it involves several costs including those of putting the criminals on death row, undertaking the criminal investigations and trials.

 

 

The modern world should be in a position to determine whether the establishment of the justice systems is out of the need for rehabilitation or desire for retribution. The church today does not want to involve itself entirely in matters pertaining capital punishment and concludes that the process imposed by civil law should solely deal with the matter. In the Islamic law, there are intense controversies on the topic of capital punishment due to the possibility of issuing monetary compensation for a capital crime committed, and discrimination between the death of a man and woman. Additionally, discrimination when passing judgment between a Muslim and a non-Muslim contributes to this controversy. The life of a woman is equated to that of a non-Muslim, which is regarded as half worth that of a man or a Muslim. On the other hand, Buddhism is quite incompatible with any condemnation that yields brutality associated with war and death penalties. This action of the death penalty should be advocated against as it seems barbaric as well as brutal, and good legislation should be undertaken to abolish this practice.

References

DPIC | Death Penalty Information Center. (2015). Retrieved from http://www.deathpenaltyinfo.org/

Goldstein, W. (2006). Defending the Human Spirit: Jewish Law’s Vision for a Moral Society. Feldheim Publishers.

The Russian Orthodox Church | Department for External Church Relations. (n.d.). Retrieved from https://mospat.ru/en/

Selengut, C. (2008). Sacred Fury: Understanding religious violence. Lanham, Md: Rowman & Littlefield Publishers

Hitchens, C. (2008). God is not great: How religion poisons everything. McClelland & Stewart.

Dawkins, R. (2009). The god delusion. Random House.

MORDI, R. Right to Life and Death Penalty: A Critical Analysis.

Reggio, M. (2014). History Of The Death Penalty | The Execution | FRONTLINE | PBS. Retrieved from http://www.pbs.org/wgbh/pages/frontline/shows/execution/readings/history.html

Keith, C. (2008). Recent and Previous Research on the Pericope Adulterae (John 7.53—8.11). Currents in Biblical Research, 6(3), 377-404.

Pun, B. Capital Punishment.

McAnally, T. (2003). Official church statements on capital punishment.

Saeed, A., & Saeed, H. (2004). Freedom of religion, apostasy and Islam. Aldershot: Ashgate.

Hosseini, Z. M. (2010). Criminalizing Sexuality: Zina Laws as Violence Against Women in Muslim Contexts. Violence Is Not Our Culture: The Global Campaign to Stop Killing and Stoning Women and Women Living under Muslim Laws.

Mir-Hosseini, Z. (2011). Criminalizing sexuality: Zina laws as violence against women in Muslim contexts. SUR-Int’l J. on Hum Rts., 15, 7.

Leaman, O. (2013). Controversies in contemporary Islam. Routledge.

Aasi, G. H., Afsaruddin, A., Bakar, O., Brown, S., Crow, K. D., Dueck, A. C., & Woodberry, J. D. (2009). Peace-Building by, between, and beyond Muslims and Evangelical Christians. M. Abu-Nimer, & D. Augsburger (Eds.). Lexington Books.

Peters, R. (2005). Crime and punishment in Islamic law: theory and practice from the sixteenth to the twenty-first century (No. 2). Cambridge University Press.

Phillips, S. (2009). Legal disparities in the capital of capital punishment. The Journal of Criminal Law and Criminology, 717-756.

Harris, E. J. (2013). Buddhism and the Religious Other. Understanding Interreligious Relations, 88.

Darling-Smith, B. (2007). Responsibility. Lanham, Md. [u.a.: Lexington Books.

Collins, S. (1997). A Buddhist debate about the self; And remarks on Buddhism in the work of Derek Parfit and Galen Strawson. Journal of Indian Philosophy,25(5), 467-493.